by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Novus Lucidum Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,7302,7312,7322,7332,7342,7352,736. . .2,7682,769»

No one here is a nazi.

Just incorrect.

Ionalands wrote:Ok that's a little melodramatic.

There's a bit of a schism, but there's no need for mods to get involved.

Not really I once had a Mod ban me from using any RMB because I called
a friend from school a "Poopyhead" because I was trying my hand in jokes.
The mods didn't find it funny and deleted the comment and suspended my RMB privileges nevertheless...
So no, Im not being melodramatic.

Rilandse wrote:The slippery slope argument only works when leftists use it.

I think eventually I'm going to end up caving in. Please send me life support.

My occupation of Hunzali RP has frozen...what ever shall I do?

Ionalands wrote:No one here is a nazi.

Just incorrect.

Based and red pilled

Cauva wrote:Refusing to ban Nazism because that might lead to the banning of other ideologies and because everything bad about Nazism is already banned is extremism?
Banned in everything but name.

But how does banning nazism lead to banning other ideologies?

The slippery slope is imagined.

I dont really have much for to say. I'm fine with what is being proposed, but these attacks on Hunzali are extremely unfair. Extremism is something that is rapidly growing in visibility. You are not wrong if you do not wish to tolerate it.

Ionalands wrote:But how does banning nazism lead to banning other ideologies?

The slippery slope is imagined.

I dont really have much for to say. I'm fine with what is being proposed, but these attacks on Hunzali are extremely unfair. Extremism is something that is rapidly growing in visibility. You are not wrong if you do not wish to tolerate it.

Rilandse's "argument" that nazis can just use a different term is broke too. things like Strasserism and the like are *branches* of Naziism, and would fall under the ban.

Ionalands wrote:But how does banning nazism lead to banning other ideologies?

The slippery slope is imagined.

I dont really have much for to say. I'm fine with what is being proposed, but these attacks on Hunzali are extremely unfair. Extremism is something that is rapidly growing in visibility. You are not wrong if you do not wish to tolerate it.

You keep bringing up extremeism, are you calling us extremists for following our constitution, which reaffirm we don't tolerate homophobia, racism, etc.? If not, I see no way how this is relevant.

Ionalands wrote:But how does banning nazism lead to banning other ideologies?

The slippery slope is imagined.

I dont really have much for to say. I'm fine with what is being proposed, but these attacks on Hunzali are extremely unfair. Extremism is something that is rapidly growing in visibility. You are not wrong if you do not wish to tolerate it.

If we ban Nazism anyone could say "Hey, that's unfair, why is Nazism banned but __ isn't?" I don't see how that's imagined, that's what happens when you ban one thing but not another. It's called being selective.

The fact Hunzali wants this is fine, no problem there, it's his opinion. What attacks on Hunzali? Is disagreeing an attack? I don't see how extremism has anything to do with this at the point we're at right now. I know you're aware of this, but nobody here is actually supporting Nazis.

Anacodia wrote:Rilandse's "argument" that nazis can just use a different term is broke too. things like Strasserism and the like are *branches* of Naziism, and would fall under the ban.

It's almost like we have already banned the core elements of these ideologies, but ideologies like White Nationalism isn't Nazism.

Rilandse wrote:You keep bringing up extremeism, are you calling us extremists for following our constitution, which reaffirm we don't tolerate homophobia, racism, etc.? If not, I see no way how this is relevant.

I'm not calling anyone an extremist. I'm saying he's not worthy of ridicule if he wants a famously extremist ideology banned in name.

Again, I am fine with what is happening, it's seems like nazism is de facto banned anyway.

Rilandse wrote:It's almost like we have already banned the core elements of these ideologies, but ideologies like White Nationalism isn't Nazism.

Its similar enough to fall under the umbrella and the fact youre fighting so hard against addind the word naziism into the ban when like you said "we allready ban the core elements" is a bit concerning

Ionalands wrote:I'm not calling anyone an extremist. I'm saying he's not worthy of ridicule if he wants a famously extremist ideology banned in name.

Again, I am fine with what is happening, it's seems like nazism is de facto banned anyway.

We're not "attacking" him on the basis of him want to ban [specific ideology], we are "attacking" him for completely not accepting the fact we've de facto banned certain ideologies and that he wants to go against the rules of the consitution.

Anacodia wrote:Its similar enough to fall under the umbrella and the fact youre fighting so hard against addind the word naziism into the ban when like you said "we allready ban the core elements" is a bit concerning

Whenever you're following a written document "close enough" can't be applied. Again, the argument is against going against the consitution, not defending Nazism. Also, its a bit concerning you still defend the deaths of millions at the hands of the soviets.

Rilandse wrote:We're not "attacking" him on the basis of him want to ban [specific ideology], we are "attacking" him for completely not accepting the fact we've de facto banned certain ideologies and that he wants to go against the rules of the consitution.

if weve defacto banned it than weve already gone against the rules and no harm comes from simply using the name naziism

Rilandse wrote:Whenever you're following a written document "close enough" can't be applied. Again, the argument is against going against the consitution, not defending Nazism. Also, its a bit concerning you still defend the deaths of millions at the hands of the soviets.

"no u" still isnt an argument

I don't mean to be a bother but when will I be unmuted on the discord ?

Anacodia wrote:if weve defacto banned it than weve already gone against the rules and no harm comes from simply using the name naziism

No, protecting from harassment and banning ideologies is different.

Anacodia wrote:"no u" still isnt an argument

This isn't a "no u" moment.

I am just appalled you literally justify and defend mass murder.

Rilandse wrote:This isn't a "no u" moment.

I am just appalled you literally justify and defend mass murder.

Literally a "no u" moment. you deflected and brought up my own beliefs in an attempt to tarnish my argument.

Rilandse wrote:This isn't a "no u" moment.

I am just appalled you literally justify and defend mass murder.

Also, youre misrepresenting my argument YET AGAIN. My argument was, everry single time that we had it, that not nearly as many died as is commonly stated

Anacodia wrote:Literally a "no u" moment. you deflected and brought up my own beliefs in an attempt to tarnish my argument.

You've deflected I didn't. I addressed your point and said this wasn't about defending Nazism, but the rules we all are to follow.

Me bringing up your distorted, immoral beliefs is me saying that I find it rather funny that you are concerned with apparently following the rules, when you believe mass killings are ok.

Anacodia wrote:Also, youre misrepresenting my argument YET AGAIN. My argument was, everry single time that we had it, that not nearly as many died as is commonly stated

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin.

Regardless of it it was a few thousands or a few million, it is immoral to justify and defend it.

Rilandse wrote:You've deflected I didn't. I addressed your point and said this wasn't about defending Nazism, but the rules we all are to follow.

Me bringing up your distorted, immoral beliefs is me saying that I find it rather funny that you are concerned with apparently following the rules, when you believe mass killings are ok.

Me: "No, not nearly as many people died, most deaths are misatributed, and it wasnt the genocidal regime that western media says it is"
you: "YOURE SAYING THAT IT WAS GOOD THAT THEY DIED AAARGAHJKRJHGASDJHG"

Rilandse wrote:"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin.

Regardless of it it was a few thousands or a few million, it is immoral to justify and defend it.

correcting the number and cause of deaths is not the same as justifying and defending it.

«12. . .2,7302,7312,7322,7332,7342,7352,736. . .2,7682,769»

Advertisement